Gender Discrimination at Work: Analysis of Stereotypes and Policies

This report provides a sociological analysis of gender discrimination in the workplace, drawing on research that connects gender stereotypes, institutional policies, and the gender composition of workplaces. The study analyzes 219 discrimination narratives from cases brought before the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, offering insights into how discriminatory actions occur within various work settings. The findings highlight the interplay of cultural underpinnings, structural contexts, and interactional dynamics in fostering discrimination. The report examines how gender stereotyping combines with workplace policies and sex composition, often through discretionary policy usage, to result in discrimination. It explores the cultural, structural, and interactional influences on gender discrimination, emphasizing the role of cultural beliefs, organizational structures, and the behaviors of institutional actors. The research considers factors such as wage disparities, occupational sex segregation, and gender differences in authority, while also examining how gender stereotypes, both descriptive and prescriptive, affect discrimination in hiring, promotions, and other areas. The data, derived from OCRC cases between 1988 and 2003, provides a comprehensive view of how discrimination unfolds in everyday work settings. The report concludes by emphasizing the importance of understanding the connections between gender ideology, organizational structure, and institutional actors in order to address and combat gender discrimination effectively.

http://gas.sagepub.com/
Gender & Society
http://gas.sagepub.com/content/25/6/764
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0891243211424741
2011 25: 764Gender & Society
Donna Bobbitt-Zeher
Institutional Policies, and Gender Composition of Workplace
Gender Discrimination at Work: Connecting Gender Stereotypes,
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Sociologists for Women in Society
can be found at:Gender & SocietyAdditional services and information for
http://gas.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://gas.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://gas.sagepub.com/content/25/6/764.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- Dec 5, 2011Version of Record>>
at St Petersburg State University on December 5, 2013gas.sagepub.comDownloaded from at St Petersburg State University on December 5, 2013gas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

GENDER DISCRIMINATION AT WORK:
Connecting Gender Stereotypes, Institutional
Policies, and Gender Composition of Workplace
DONNA BOBBITT-ZEHER
The Ohio State University
Research on gender inequality has posited the importance of gender discrimination for
women’s experiences at work. Previous studies have suggested that gender stereotyping
and organizational factors may contribute to discrimination. Yet it is not well understood
how these elements connect to foster gender discrimination in everyday workplaces. This
work contributes to our understanding of these relationships by analyzing 219 discrimina-
tion narratives constructed from sex discrimination cases brought before the Ohio Civil
Rights Commission. By looking across a variety of actual work settings, the analysis sheds
light on the cultural underpinnings and structural contexts in which discriminatory
actions occur. The analyses reveal how gender stereotyping combines in predictable ways
with sex composition of workplaces and organizational policies, often through interac-
tional dynamics of discretionary policy usage, to result in discrimination. The findings
suggest the importance of cultural, structural, and interactional influences on gender
discrimination.
Keywords: class/stratification; law; work/occupations
Feminists have long theorized the importance of gender discrimination
in women’s occupational outcomes (e.g., Reskin 1988). Recent
research shows that workplace discrimination continues to be an impedi-
ment to gender equality (e.g., Gorman 2005). Yet, how gender discrimina-
tion unfolds in everyday workplaces is not well understood. Past work
AUTHOR’S NOTE: I would like to thank Doug Downey, Lisa Garoutte, Marguerite
Hernandez, Vinnie Roscigno, Dana Britton, and the anonymous Gender & Society review-
ers for their thoughtful suggestions as I developed this paper. This research received no
specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
GENDER & SOCIETY, Vol. 25 No. 6, December 2011 764-786
DOI: 10.1177/0891243211424741
© 2011 by The Author(s)
764
at St Petersburg State University on December 5, 2013gas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Bobbitt-Zeher / Gender discrimination at Work 765
associates gender discrimination with cultural beliefs about men and
women as well as institutionalized policies and practices in workplace
organizations (see Ridgeway and England 2007; Glick and Fiske 2007).
Other scholarship (e.g., Roth 2004; Hirsh and Kornrich 2008) argues sex
composition of the workplace may matter. However, little work has
explored how gender stereotyping and elements of workplace structure
combine to contribute to workplace discrimination. In the few studies that
do consider some of these complexities (e.g., Burgess and Borgida 1999;
Gorman 2005), a lack of testing in diverse workplace contexts and across
a variety of types of discrimination limits our understanding of how these
elements combine to facilitate or impede discrimination.
To build a more comprehensive understanding of gender discrimina-
tion, we need to consider discrimination as a process connected to the
larger gender system. This means exploring the cultural component of
gender ideology, the structural features of sex segregation and formal
policies, and the behaviors of institutional actors who apply and enforce
such policies in everyday work settings. This work seeks to bring us closer
to this kind of understanding by exploring women’s experiences with
employment discrimination using 219 narratives constructed from cases
for which the Ohio Civil Rights Commission ruled that there was probable
cause to believe sex discrimination happened. These narratives shed light
on how discrimination unfolds for women in everyday work settings and
across a variety of types of discriminatory actions. My analyses reveal
how stereotyping and gatekeeper views of gender appropriateness com-
bine with institutional policies across organizational contexts to translate
into discriminatory actions. By considering these elements and their con-
nections, the findings shed light on how discrimination builds on struc-
tural, cultural, and interactional dimensions of the gender system.
Gender discrimination in emPLoYment
Men and women experience the world of work quite differently. Wage
disparities, occupational sex segregation, and gender differences in
authority, for example, are well documented (e.g., Padavic and Reskin
2002). Despite notable changes in work, meaningful differences in these
areas remain persistent features of contemporary society (England 2006,
2010). The reasons are complex, including explanations on the supply
side (related to individual level differences) and the demand side (related
to aggregate or organizational factors) (e.g., Reskin 1993). While there are
certainly other factors at play, this paper focuses on discrimination, one
at St Petersburg State University on December 5, 2013gas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

766 Gender & societY / december 2011
demand side factor associated with gender disparities in employment.
Although it is hard to capture the prevalence of gender-based discrimina-
tion, some research estimates about four to five percent of workers per-
ceive that they have experienced discrimination in the past year (Avery,
McKay, and Wilson 2008). Studies have documented discrimination in a
variety of forms, including in hiring (Gorman 2005; Goldin and Rouse
2000), promotions (Olson and Becker 1983), wages (Meitzen 1986), and
performance evaluations (American Bar Association 2006) as well as
sexual harassment (see Welsh 1999).
Of course, documenting the contemporary occurrence of gender dis-
crimination in employment is only a first step. As Reskin (2000, 320)
argues, “we need to move beyond demonstrating that employment dis-
crimination exists, and investigate why it persists in work organizations.”
We must look at processes that lead to unequal outcomes for women and
men. The real challenge is to uncover how discrimination unfolds in
actual work settings.
cultural, structural, and interactional Foundations
Scholars generally regard cultural beliefs about gender as foundational
to discrimination against women in the workplace (Ridgeway and
England 2007, 193). Consciously or not, individuals translate ideas about
gender into discriminatory behaviors through sex categorization and gen-
der stereotyping. Regardless of other statuses they may occupy, people
tend to categorize each other by sex, which activates gender stereotypes
and may elicit gender-based in-group/out-group processes (Reskin 2000;
Ridgeway and England 2007).
Cognitive psychologists have further differentiated between descriptive
and prescriptive gender stereotypes. Descriptive stereotypes concern
beliefs about traits that one gender has; prescriptive stereotypes involve
beliefs about traits one gender should have (Burgess and Borgida 1999).
For example, the expectation that women will be nurturing would be
descriptive, whereas the belief that women should be nurturing would be
prescriptive. These stereotyped notions of gender difference affect how
women and men think and behave (Ridgeway and England 2007; Reskin
2000; Ridgeway and Correll 2004). Cognitive psychologists argue the
nature of these stereotypes may lead to discrimination in distinct ways.
For instance, descriptive stereotyping should translate into discrimination
when traits associated with that stereotype are incompatible with the traits
needed for the job or task at hand (Burgess and Borgida 1999; Fiske et al.
1991). Thus, women in occupations dominated by men may be especially
at St Petersburg State University on December 5, 2013gas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Bobbitt-Zeher / Gender discrimination at Work 767
prone to this kind of discrimination (Burgess and Borgida 1999). In con-
trast, violations of prescriptive stereotypes often generate more hostile
reactions, as others punish women through discrimination for deviance
from gendered expectations (Burgess and Borgida 1999).
While the primary causes of sex discrimination are rooted in cultural
beliefs, secondary causes relate to organizational structures, policies, and
practices (Ridgeway and England 2007, 199). These institutional features
may build on gender stereotypes, disparately affecting women and men
workers (Ridgeway and England 2007, 200). As institutionalized ele-
ments of organizational structure, such policies and procedures become
legitimized, often appearing gender-neutral, while also formalizing men’s
privilege in the workplace (Ridgeway and Correll 2004; Ridgeway and
England 2007; Roos and Reskin 1984).
Sex composition of the workplace may affect discrimination as well.
Ridgeway and Correll (2004, 517; Ridgeway 2006, 275) argue that gender
becomes “effectively salient,” or important enough to affect behavior in a
meaningful way, in settings where men and women come into contact and
also in sex-typed settings where descriptive gender stereotypes are linked
to specific job activities or elements. Studies looking specifically at dis-
crimination (e.g., Burstein 1989) often conclude women working in work
settings or occupations traditionally dominated by men may be the most
vulnerable to gender discrimination and sexual harassment. This may
result from men’s attempts to preserve privilege in these settings (De
Coster, Estes, and Mueller 1999). However, other work finds that an
increased presence of women may increase harassment, and specific
forms of it, as men interpret women’s increased presence as a threat to
their power (Chamberlain et al. 2008).
While the literature provides good reason to look to cultural underpin-
nings and structural contexts, discrimination ultimately concerns actions
and interaction (Ridgeway and England 2007). Institutional actors make
decisions to hire, fire, promote, and transfer workers. They also set wages,
evaluate performance, and create, modify, and enforce organizational
policies and procedures. Not only are gendered beliefs and organizational
context influenced and reinforced (or challenged) by interactions
(Ridgeway 1997; Martin 2003), but gender itself is created and re-created
through interaction (West and Zimmerman 1987).
Existing scholarship orients us to cultural, structural, and interactional
elements when considering gender discrimination; how these elements
relate remains to be systematically explored in real-world work environ-
ments. Gorman’s (2005) work on gender discrimination in hiring moves
at St Petersburg State University on December 5, 2013gas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

768 Gender & societY / december 2011
us in the right direction, challenging us to look for connections between
gender ideology, organizational structure, and institutional actors engag-
ing in discriminatory actions across a variety of workplace settings. Thus
far, however, a lack of available data capturing these elements across
diverse settings has been an impediment to such research. In the present
study, I utilize a unique collection of narratives constructed from concrete
incidents of sex discrimination investigated by the Ohio Civil Rights
Commission (OCRC). By systematically and rigorously examining these
cases, this study contributes to the literature on gender discrimination
by exploring connections between gender stereotyping and workplace
policies and their application across a range of workplaces.
data and anaLYtic strateGY
data
Data come from cases of sex discrimination in employment filed with
the OCRC between 1988 and 2003. The OCRC’s master database includes
data on the charging party’s race and sex, the basis of the charge (e.g., sex,
race, religion), the harm or injury that occurred (e.g., unequal wages, fir-
ing, sexual harassment), and the outcome of the investigation. In addition
to the database, I was allowed access to actual case files. These files gen-
erally contain the charging party’s account of the alleged discrimination
and why they believe it is discrimination, a response to the allegations
from the employer, witness statements about what occurred, the OCRC
investigative staff’s analysis of the evidence, and any reconsiderations of
the original OCRC decision, which includes the rationale for the final
decision. Most files contain information on the organizational composi-
tion of the charging party’s workplace as well.
Admittedly, the data capture a select group of discrimination cases. As
a legal construct, discrimination focuses on disparate treatment and dispa-
rate impact. Thus, the cases show either intentional, unequal treatment
based on sex or unequal impact of neutral policies on one sex (see Rhode
and Williams 2007). Furthermore, for a case to be included in the data, a
worker must experience an adverse employment action, perceive it as
discrimination, and file a claim with the appropriate agency (i.e., the
“name,” “blame,” and “claim” phenomenon discussed by Felstiner, Abel,
and Sarat 1981, 635-36). Certain groups of workers, particularly educated
women and women in workplaces traditionally dominated by men, may
be more likely to do so (Burstein 1989). Of course, there are significant
at St Petersburg State University on December 5, 2013gas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Bobbitt-Zeher / Gender discrimination at Work 769
levels of gender discrimination that women never report (see Beiner and
O’Conner 2007; Bisom-Rapp, Stockdale, and Crosby 2007), and there are
cases filed that do not fit with socially shared definitions of discrimina-
tion. Thus, I recognize the data represent a selective group of women and
significantly underestimate discrimination.
Given the nature of the data, I limit my sampling frame to cases of
employment discrimination that women filed and in which the OCRC
deemed probable cause for a charge of discrimination on the basis of sex
(including pregnancy) (n = 1,418). A probable cause finding—that it is
probable that discrimination occurred—helps distinguish cases with little
supporting evidence from those with significant supporting evidence in
favor of the charging party’s claim. While most of these cases do not
involve a secondary basis (i.e., race, disability, age, and/or retaliation), I
include cases with secondary bases in order to consider issues of intersec-
tionality in the analysis. From this sampling frame, I drew a random
sample of cases (n = 219) from which I created the discrimination narra-
tives (described below) that are the focus of this analysis.
Relying on cases with a probable cause determination makes the sam-
ple even more selective, as civil rights investigators must find enough
supporting evidence to merit a determination that discrimination probably
happened. Many cases never filed, as well as some of the nonprobable
cause cases, undoubtedly reflect instances of actual discrimination but
may lack supporting evidence that would be convincing to a judicial body.
This likely yields a sample of more blatant discrimination cases than
exists naturally. Therefore, we should be cautious of generalizing the pat-
terns descriptive of this analysis, particularly the patterns in occurrence,
to all cases of gender discrimination.
methods
To explore the dynamics of gender discrimination, I immersed myself
in these 219 cases, studying them for patterns and emergent themes. For
each woman in the sample, I created a discrimination narrative, a history
of her discriminatory experiences with the employing organization. The
narrative is a summary of the “who, what, when, where, why, and how”
of the discrimination based on the documents available in each case file.
To construct individual narratives, I used a standardized coding device to
systematically record information on contexts and dynamics involved in
each case. I recorded basic information on each woman, including her
race and job title. I coded for actors named by the charging party as dis-
criminators and their discriminatory actions, including the number, nature,
at St Petersburg State University on December 5, 2013gas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

770 Gender & societY / december 2011
and basis of the present case as well as any past recorded instances with
the same employer from the case file. I also coded for the type of dis-
crimination, stereotyping, workplace composition, and role of policy in
the discrimination. I categorized women’s experiences into seven types of
discrimination: expulsion, exclusion, sexual harassment, other harass-
ment, mobility, material conditions, and working conditions. I allowed for
multiple types of discrimination within any given narrative. While all
narratives share a probable cause finding on sex discrimination, I noted
any additional bases as well (i.e., age, race, disability, and retaliation).
Drawing on the prescriptive/descriptive stereotyping literature (e.g.,
Glick and Fiske 2007) as well as emerging themes that I identified, I sys-
tematically coded for presence and type of gender stereotyping. Specifically,
I coded for descriptive stereotyping, conceptualized as expressions of how
women in general are assumed to be and expressions indicating that
women’s traits are incompatible with a particular job, and prescriptive
stereotyping, measured as expressions that a particular woman worker
violates gender assumptions. Immersion in the cases suggested the need
for an “other” category—that is, other expressions consistent with gender
assumptions in ways of thinking—measured as views of the woman as a
liability in a way related to her gender or pregnancy and a general gender
animosity with no clear rationale.
To consider workplace setting, I coded sex composition of immediate
workplace setting as male-dominated, female-dominated, integrated, or
unclear based on descriptions of the everyday workplace. I found such
descriptions in charge forms or supporting documents (generally in the
form of statements such as “I am the only woman in the company” or in
lists of employee names) and, to a lesser extent, in employer’s EE-01
forms that enumerate sex composition. Finally, I systematically coded for
the role of workplace policies in discrimination. Specifically, I coded for
evidence of discriminatory policies, lack of policies, and discretion in
policy usage, particularly unequal application or enforcement of policies.
Below, I highlight these dynamics; throughout, I use basic descriptive
statistical analysis of the sample to support impressions of pervasiveness.
While I do not suggest that occurrences in these data are generalizable to
the general population of working women, I highlight issues of propor-
tionality in order to consider the salience of stereotyping and workplace
polices for discrimination across work settings. I use the qualitative data
to draw out more subtle distinctions and explore in greater depth how
these elements combine to shape women’s experiences with discrimina-
tion. I have changed individual names to protect confidentiality.
at St Petersburg State University on December 5, 2013gas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Bobbitt-Zeher / Gender discrimination at Work 771
Patterns and Processes oF Gender
discrimination in emPLoYment
descriptive Patterns: actions and the organizational
context of Gender discrimination
I begin with a look at the kinds of discrimination represented in the
discrimination narratives, keeping in mind that one case may contain
more than one type of discriminatory action. As shown in Table 1, the vast
majority of the narratives involve expulsion (being pushed out or fired)
with substantial percentages involving sexual harassment, other types of
harassment, unequal material conditions, and unequal working condi-
tions. Cases of blocked mobility and exclusion are less prevalent. These
patterns are consistent with those found in other studies of legal claims of
discrimination (e.g., Hirsh 2008). Most women reported experiencing
multiple types of discriminatory actions. In such instances, it is common
for women to experience harassment, especially sexual harassment, and/
or unequal conditions prior to being fired or otherwise discharged.
Most workplaces described in the narratives are segregated. For those
workplaces about which such information exists, slightly more than half
are male-dominated, while a third are female-dominated. About 11 percent
are integrated. These patterns align with Burstein’s (1989) argument that
women in male-dominated work settings are more likely to be represented
in legal cases of sex discrimination. Consistent with the general population
of the state, the narratives predominately capture the experiences of white
women, who make up 80 percent of the cases in the sample.
descriptive and Prescriptive stereotyping
As summarized in Table 1, I find evidence of gender stereotyping in
almost two-thirds of the narratives. The most prevalent expressions are
descriptive stereotypes. These expressions include ideas about women’s
assumed characteristics (38 percent of narratives) and ideas about wom-
en’s traits as incompatible with the job at hand (six percent). In eight
percent of the narratives, there is evidence of prescriptive stereotyping. In
eleven percent of the narratives, there are other expressions of gendered
assumptions.
Women first, workers second. The discrimination narratives paint a
picture of women workers as viewed first as women, second as workers.
This appears most clearly in explicit expressions that suggest women’s
personal lives and roles as wives and mothers make them less invested
and less reliable workers. For example, as one witness testified,
at St Petersburg State University on December 5, 2013gas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

772 Gender & societY / december 2011
TABLE 1: Descriptive Patterns in Discrimination Narratives,
n = 219
Percentage of
Narratives
Type of discrimination
Expulsion 62
Exclusion 8
Sexual harassment 26
Other harassment 14
Mobility 16
Material conditions 27
Working conditions 26
Multiple types of discrimination
One type 41
Two types 37
More than two types 22
Sex composition of work setting
Integrated 8
Female-dominated 24
Male-dominated 37
Unknown 31
Race of victim
White 80
Black 13
Other 7
Type of gender stereotyping
Descriptive 44
Prescriptive 8
Other 11
None documented 37
Policy issue
Discriminatory policy 10
Lack of policy is discriminatory 13
Discretion in policy application or enforcement 51
No observed policy issue 26
Gabe Marshall [Company Vice President] had warned me about promoting
women. In my opinion, he has a hang-up about women in the workplace.
He expressed the concern to me that younger women are going to have their
minds on their family and their children, rather than on the business.
Issues of dependability arise particularly in cases involving pregnancy
or maternity. A view of women as sex objects is also common. For
instance, one witness says this about the Company President: “He perceived
at St Petersburg State University on December 5, 2013gas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Bobbitt-Zeher / Gender discrimination at Work 773
himself to be king of his harem. [He] wanted sexual relationships with all
of the females in the office. This [was] made very clear—he was very
sexually aggressive.”
Gender inferiority. At times, employers explicitly express ideas about
women’s assumed traits—traits that would likely be viewed negatively in
any job. In these narratives, authority figures draw on traditional stereo-
types of women as unintelligent, hormonal, and overly emotional. Along
these lines, Rhonda Patterson, a sales agent, described how the company
owner viewed women as unintelligent: “[He] had signs posted stating that
‘no girls [are] allowed’ in the 1200 Club (dollar volume in a pay period).
After I reached the 1200 Club, [he] told me that ‘no girls will ever reach
the 1500 Club because girls are too dumb.’” The view of women as hor-
monal and emotional also comes through in a substantial number of nar-
ratives. For instance, several employers note women need time off for
“monthly days.” Along these lines, one woman notes “The President told
me that it was company policy that all women were allowed five personal
days per year. He described those five personal days as menstrual days.”
Women workers, men’s jobs. While the majority of the narratives that
involve descriptive stereotyping concern how employers assumed women
to be more generally, gender stereotyping also occurs in cases where there
is a perceived mismatch between the gender of the actual or potential
worker and the expected gender of the job filler. In particular, gendered
assumptions about the skills, mindset, and predisposition needed for
men’s work conflict with assumptions about women’s traits. For example,
a witness describes the reaction of a midlevel manager to his suggestion
that Crystal Sheets take on a role supervising seasonal workers in a utili-
ties industry: “when discussing this matter of Crystal filling the jobs, he
claimed that she couldn’t do the jobs of coordinating with him and the
seasonals, claimed that ‘she’s a woman’ and cannot handle the job, and
should be left to clean cause ‘that’s what a woman is good for.’”
In more patronizing expressions, in a handful of cases employees refer-
enced the hardships of a woman trying to be successful in a male-dominated
position as the rationale for denying them opportunities. For example,
“Alvin Thompson [Manager] told me that ‘a woman cannot succeed at [this
company] because they’re not privy to the good ole boys club.”’ In other
instances, employers evoke a preference for men given the nature of the
work environment. This happened to Courtney Earles as she repeatedly
tried to obtain a position as a parts clerk in an auto parts store. As the inves-
tigator concluded, “witness testimony substantiates that Charging Party
at St Petersburg State University on December 5, 2013gas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

774 Gender & societY / december 2011
initially interviewed for a counter position, but ‘. . . since she was female,’
was given the bookkeeping position. ‘Mr. Rupp indicated that the people in
[the auto parts store] would not like a female at the counter.’”
Prescriptive stereotypes. While all of these instances fall into the cat-
egory of descriptive stereotyping, many indicate prescriptive notions
about how women should be that lead to discrimination. The narratives of
women of color are more likely than those of white women to include this
kind of language. There are three primary prescriptive themes. First,
employers sanction women for violations of expectations concerning
physical attractiveness. In several cases, for example, employers termi-
nated service workers when they became pregnant. As one witness
describes, the owner of a bar told her that “it was not attractive” and “the
customers did not want a woman in [her] condition working around
them.” Second, employers punish women for “unladylike” behavior. Several
narratives note employers sanctioning women, but not men, for “inappro-
priate language” or aggressive behavior. Unique to the narratives of Black
and multiracial women, employers sanction women of color for “combat-
ive” communication styles and “overbearing” attitudes. A third theme is
that employers discriminate against women when they view them as
sexually inappropriate or threatening. For example, in several cases
co workers were accused of having a sexual relationship in the workplace.
The woman was terminated, but the man received a one-day suspension
or no penalty, suggesting a sexual double standard at play.
Gender bias. There are two additional ideological themes in these cases.
One is general animosity toward women without an underlying rationale.
Found in a handful of narratives, these references suggest a view of women
in general as “bitches,” “stupid bitches,” and “fucking cunts.” The second is
that certain women are potential liabilities. While perceptions of women’s
physicality in general (i.e., women as weak) could lead to gender-based dis-
crimination for all women, in the narratives this view was particularly com-
mon in employers’ interpretation of pregnant women as potential risks.
Employers raise such concerns twice as often in the narratives of women of
color, where they more directly made comments such as “[she was fired]
because [she] is pregnant could fall down and press charges.”
stereotyping and Workplace Gender composition
Expressions of gender stereotypes are disproportionately more com-
mon in certain organizational contexts. As illustrated in Figure 1, there are
at St Petersburg State University on December 5, 2013gas.sagepub.comDownloaded from